No. 21-6019

James Paul Arlotta v. His Holiness Pope Francis, et al.

Lower Court: Second Circuit
Docketed: 2021-10-19
Status: Dismissed
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: appearances-of-impropriety bankruptcy-court civil-rights conflicts-of-interest constitutional-questions court-jurisdiction due-process establishment-clause judicial-proceedings legal-review recusal
Latest Conference: 2022-01-07
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the court will adhere to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in light of the apparent conflicts of interest and impropriety involving the Diocese of Buffalo, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the Vatican City State

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED , Lu regards to the various conflicts of Interest: and Appearences’ of im preptiety , Th tough Contradictery exercises’ of former WDLY chief 5 adage“ Frank p. Geraci, and current uJ uclge ” _ Lawrenee J, Vilardo, Along with the aforestafted by Ui DAY hankruptey “jada” Catl Buck, Net withstanding thes court fefuce| to respond (in and Tren, ) Q Motion for Reconsideration ; Gnd the Motion for Recusal of this court’s chief y) udge ’ Jahn Roberts Je, En re, wary te-ev634 Arlotis vDiocese of Buf fo e+ al.. Will this Court adhere te our Federal const: tutional (st Amend met Establishment Clause * hel \ ; oman Catnelr ehizConsidering President Joesph Biden $ R ; coms on, and the Appearences: of i mpeepriety/ cont hiets of interest Ryacding Vatican City State's Aiplomatic Stand has’ * and | ’ ‘ / : os | Fore County New Yorks distriat attorney > dicect Faun. / va felatioushyp, wikh the diocese of Butfylo s Cheist the King Seminary, (formerly,) in East Aurora New York, the WDOY or Digteict of Columbia's Fe der FOF J ATES LS THE ATRRMEY Chxexac of THE U.S. DEAAR— Test oF Sustrce ANd Its OFRsce OF Twstecroe CBwecn faire ATIEwryed, 980 TMT BEN 3

Docket Entries

2022-01-10
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).
2021-12-02
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/7/2022.
2021-10-14
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 18, 2021)

Attorneys

James Paul Arlotta
James P. Arlotta — Petitioner
James P. Arlotta — Petitioner